Turns out Hillary Clinton said Republicans -- not Russians -- were grooming Tulsi Gabbard

[Anon-C]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: MarketWatch

Corrections from news orgs come a week after original reports sparked a war of words

In a curious turn of events, a number of major news organizations ran corrections Wednesday night over week-old reports that sparked a testy war of words between Hillary Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Last week, a number of media organizations, including the New York Times, CNN and Politico, ran reports saying Clinton told the podcast “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe” that Russians were “grooming” a female Democratic candidate — widely assumed to be Gabbard — for a third-party run to play a potential spoiler in the 2020 election.

But apparently Clinton meant Republicans — not Russians — were doing the grooming.

The New York Times ran this correction Wednesday night: “An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was ‘the favorite of the Russians,’ and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton’s remark about the ‘grooming’ of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans’ strategy, not about Russian intervention.”

Read more: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turns-out-hillary-clinton-said-republicans-not-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-2019-10-24

---

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Not the first time tRump-Republicons have confused themselves with Russians. . . . nt

[Chakaconcarne]

2. Republicans....Russians.... Easy to get them confused.

[Fix The Stupid]

3. Isn't there audio? Should put this to rest. n/t

[thesquanderer]

6. Yes, you can hear the podcast. The transcriptions I saw were accurate. Some interpretations weren't.

Podcast at
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vaHEtcGxvdWZmZQ&episode=OGE2M2FhMTgtZTZlMS0xMWU5LTk4YWEtNTM4NTJiZDViMzc5&hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjzmZSA-KXlAhXmm-AKHZsMC_AQieUEegQIABAE&ep=6&at=1571406131757


Passage in question at about 35 minutes in.

[Fix The Stupid]

10. ok... I listened...I clearly heard her say "russians" - what am I missing here? n/t

[thesquanderer]

15. She said that word, but in what context?

I believe this transcript is correct, edited to the pertinent parts...

Plouffe: "So {Trump's} going to try and drive the people not to vote for him but just to say, ‘you know, you can't vote for them either.’ And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can define a strategy, their key strategy right now."

Clinton: "Well, I think there's going to be two parts and I think it's going to be the same as 2016: ‘Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me? Don't vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z or the other guy did such terrible things...They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians.

The question is about who the words "they" and "their" refer to -- it's ambiguous, which is what caused the confusion in interpretation. But in the full context, it makes sense if "they" and "their" refer to Trump and his Republicans. Yes, Clinton is talking about someone being groomed, and she talks about that person being the favorite of the Russians, but the quote does not actually say the Russians are the ones doing the grooming. It is, at least, open to interpretation. It can be "Republican operatives are trying to groom someone for a third party run. This person they're grooming is a favorite of the Russians."

[DetlefK]

4. Oh, for fuck's sake, NYT. For fuck's sake.

With their endless front-page stories about Hillary's emails, only to bury the exoneration on page 16...

With the NYT hiring biased right-wing mouthpieces because it values political balance higher than the truth...

With the NYT running a sensationalist article on something that never happened...

Seriously, where does this rumor come from that the NYT is somehow more trustworthy than other newspapers?

[thesquanderer]

12. Not so out of the ordinary

With their endless front-page stories about Hillary's emails, only to bury the exoneration on page 16...

'
The exoneration happened (and was widely reported) long ago. As I said elsewhere, this new story was, in a sense, "new report confirms previous report" or "Hillary cleared yet again for something she was already cleared for." So to play a little devil's advocate here, how newsworthy is that, really? Should it really be front page news? (Honestly, the people who believe she was already cleared won't see this as important news, and the ones who don't believe she was cleared STILL aren't going to be convinced.)

With the NYT hiring biased right-wing mouthpieces because it values political balance higher than the truth...

NYT has had left and right on the op-ed pages forever. News is supposed to be about truth, op-ed is supposed to be about opinion, and political balance is an acceptable goal in that context.

With the NYT running a sensationalist article on something that never happened...

I guess you're talking about the article that is the subject of the OP... it didn't not happen, but ambiguity in the statement led to a questionable interpretation, and the story here is that they corrected it. Newspapers make mistakes all the time. That's one reason news is the "first draft" of history. Deadline pressures and putting out stories before all facts are known come with the territory.

Seriously, where does this rumor come from that the NYT is somehow more trustworthy than other newspapers?

It's very far from perfect, but there aren't too many that are better.

[still_one]

5. "Apparently"? When did apparently become LBN on a 3 day story based on what has been misreporting

from the start

Now they are changing the story for a third time

and with this one they are using words like "apparently"

What am I to believe

[thesquanderer]

7. A third time? It looks to me like just another re-reporting of the same correction.

Has there been more than this one correction to the NYT report (Republicans rather than Russians)? What were the others?

[still_one]

9. First time they "misquoted". Second time they said they misquoted, Third time they now say she

meant the republicans, when the previous stories left it open to both Russian and republicans

At least that is how I read out of it

but I sure won't argue the point, because I can see what you are saying

[Anon-C]

8. My bad. I thought it was pretty well tracked and a fairly germane development.

I can remove a d repost in a while

[OKNancy]

16. I'm afraid it's going to be locked anyway

because Gabbard is mentioned and all mentions of primary candidates go in the Primary forum. Unless it's huge latest breaking news like a candidate dies or something horrible.

[ChiTownDenny]

11. Tulsi Gabbard has proven herself to be unfit for office.

Tulsi demonstrated she would drop bombs at the first sign of criticism because it made her feel better. Contrast Tulsi's demeanor and JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile crisis. We'd all be blown to smithereens.

[NellieStarbuck]

13. Well, it's hard to keep the two apart anymore.

[jalan48]

14. The Drama Continues.

[OKNancy]

17. Locking - this should go in the primary forum

as Gabbard is mentioned. THere might be other posts with the same topic, so I would add this to a previous post.

[SergeStorms]

18. Same same.

There's not a dime's worth of difference between a republican and a Russian.